niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: I have watched the movie you have said. Yes, Edmond does accept the letter, but considering the time-frame (its not a modern movie in a modern society), I think Edmond cannot be considered a traitor. In those time, treason, bravery, etc. were highly valued. As for the movie itself, adding that letter-taking part creates more tension among the viewers and questions the character of Edmond Dantes. So I think its necessary and Edmond cannot be wholly considered a traitor.  <sep>  Q: Was Edmond Dantès Actually a Traitor? A: Edmond does accept the letter, but considering the time-frame (its not a modern movie in a modern society), I think Edmond cannot be considered a traitor  Q: Why did they show him taking a letter from Napoleon in the movie, but not the book? A: As for the movie itself, adding that letter-taking part creates more tension among the viewers and questions the character of Edmond Dantes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you give me any more reasons why he isn't a traitor?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I have watched the movie you have said. Yes, Edmond does accept the letter, but considering the time-frame (its not a modern movie in a modern society), I think Edmond cannot be considered a traitor. In those time, treason, bravery, etc. were highly valued. As for the movie itself, adding that letter-taking part creates more tension among the viewers and questions the character of Edmond Dantes. So I think its necessary and Edmond cannot be wholly considered a traitor.  <sep>  Q: Was Edmond Dantès Actually a Traitor? A: Edmond does accept the letter, but considering the time-frame (its not a modern movie in a modern society), I think Edmond cannot be considered a traitor  Q: Why did they show him taking a letter from Napoleon in the movie, but not the book? A: As for the movie itself, adding that letter-taking part creates more tension among the viewers and questions the character of Edmond Dantes  Q: Can you give me any more reasons why he isn't a traitor? A: In those time, treason, bravery, etc. were highly valued  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does him accepting a letter show bravery?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I have watched the movie you have said. Yes, Edmond does accept the letter, but considering the time-frame (its not a modern movie in a modern society), I think Edmond cannot be considered a traitor. In those time, treason, bravery, etc. were highly valued. As for the movie itself, adding that letter-taking part creates more tension among the viewers and questions the character of Edmond Dantes. So I think its necessary and Edmond cannot be wholly considered a traitor.  <sep>  Q: Was Edmond Dantès Actually a Traitor? A: Edmond does accept the letter, but considering the time-frame (its not a modern movie in a modern society), I think Edmond cannot be considered a traitor  Q: Why did they show him taking a letter from Napoleon in the movie, but not the book? A: As for the movie itself, adding that letter-taking part creates more tension among the viewers and questions the character of Edmond Dantes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Doesn't this counteract his naivete?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I have watched the movie you have said. Yes, Edmond does accept the letter, but considering the time-frame (its not a modern movie in a modern society), I think Edmond cannot be considered a traitor. In those time, treason, bravery, etc. were highly valued. As for the movie itself, adding that letter-taking part creates more tension among the viewers and questions the character of Edmond Dantes. So I think its necessary and Edmond cannot be wholly considered a traitor.  <sep>  Q: Was Edmond Dantès Actually a Traitor? A: Edmond does accept the letter, but considering the time-frame (its not a modern movie in a modern society), I think Edmond cannot be considered a traitor  Q: Why did they show him taking a letter from Napoleon in the movie, but not the book? A: As for the movie itself, adding that letter-taking part creates more tension among the viewers and questions the character of Edmond Dantes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Would he have been considered a traitor in a modern time frame?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The neighbor was shouting and pointing his finger towards the old man and that's what infuriated Caesar. He hated that gesture. Sometimes it happens with humans too and it makes us want to catch that finger and twist it hard. (But we don't do that :)) It's a natural emotion that comes to our mind, sometimes. My opinion is that Caesar did not want to bite it off, he just wanted to bite hard on that finger. Hard enough to cause bleeding. One more possibility is that in his anger, he closed his jaws on the finger but when the man started crying in pain he may have controlled himself and let him go. About losing the finger - losing the finger doesn't necessarily mean getting it bitten off. Maybe Caesar chewed it in a manner that it was badly damaged and may be the doctors advice to cut it off later.  <sep>  Q: not sure
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The neighbor was shouting and pointing his finger towards the old man and that's what infuriated Caesar. He hated that gesture. Sometimes it happens with humans too and it makes us want to catch that finger and twist it hard. (But we don't do that :)) It's a natural emotion that comes to our mind, sometimes. My opinion is that Caesar did not want to bite it off, he just wanted to bite hard on that finger. Hard enough to cause bleeding. One more possibility is that in his anger, he closed his jaws on the finger but when the man started crying in pain he may have controlled himself and let him go. About losing the finger - losing the finger doesn't necessarily mean getting it bitten off. Maybe Caesar chewed it in a manner that it was badly damaged and may be the doctors advice to cut it off later.  <sep>  Q: not sure A: My opinion is that Caesar did not want to bite it off, he just wanted to bite hard on that finger  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: yes, the film shows his finger and it just looks bloody ,not cut off
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The neighbor was shouting and pointing his finger towards the old man and that's what infuriated Caesar. He hated that gesture. Sometimes it happens with humans too and it makes us want to catch that finger and twist it hard. (But we don't do that :)) It's a natural emotion that comes to our mind, sometimes. My opinion is that Caesar did not want to bite it off, he just wanted to bite hard on that finger. Hard enough to cause bleeding. One more possibility is that in his anger, he closed his jaws on the finger but when the man started crying in pain he may have controlled himself and let him go. About losing the finger - losing the finger doesn't necessarily mean getting it bitten off. Maybe Caesar chewed it in a manner that it was badly damaged and may be the doctors advice to cut it off later.  <sep>  Q: not sure A: My opinion is that Caesar did not want to bite it off, he just wanted to bite hard on that finger  Q: yes, the film shows his finger and it just looks bloody ,not cut off A: One more possibility is that in his anger, he closed his jaws on the finger but when the man started crying in pain he may have controlled himself and let him go  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: so it could have been an accident?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The neighbor was shouting and pointing his finger towards the old man and that's what infuriated Caesar. He hated that gesture. Sometimes it happens with humans too and it makes us want to catch that finger and twist it hard. (But we don't do that :)) It's a natural emotion that comes to our mind, sometimes. My opinion is that Caesar did not want to bite it off, he just wanted to bite hard on that finger. Hard enough to cause bleeding. One more possibility is that in his anger, he closed his jaws on the finger but when the man started crying in pain he may have controlled himself and let him go. About losing the finger - losing the finger doesn't necessarily mean getting it bitten off. Maybe Caesar chewed it in a manner that it was badly damaged and may be the doctors advice to cut it off later.  <sep>  Q: not sure A: My opinion is that Caesar did not want to bite it off, he just wanted to bite hard on that finger  Q: yes, the film shows his finger and it just looks bloody ,not cut off A: One more possibility is that in his anger, he closed his jaws on the finger but when the man started crying in pain he may have controlled himself and let him go  Q: so it could have been an accident? A: Maybe Caesar chewed it in a manner that it was badly damaged and may be the doctors advice to cut it off later  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did the neighbor talk about it later on?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The neighbor was shouting and pointing his finger towards the old man and that's what infuriated Caesar. He hated that gesture. Sometimes it happens with humans too and it makes us want to catch that finger and twist it hard. (But we don't do that :)) It's a natural emotion that comes to our mind, sometimes. My opinion is that Caesar did not want to bite it off, he just wanted to bite hard on that finger. Hard enough to cause bleeding. One more possibility is that in his anger, he closed his jaws on the finger but when the man started crying in pain he may have controlled himself and let him go. About losing the finger - losing the finger doesn't necessarily mean getting it bitten off. Maybe Caesar chewed it in a manner that it was badly damaged and may be the doctors advice to cut it off later.  <sep>  Q: not sure A: My opinion is that Caesar did not want to bite it off, he just wanted to bite hard on that finger  Q: yes, the film shows his finger and it just looks bloody ,not cut off A: One more possibility is that in his anger, he closed his jaws on the finger but when the man started crying in pain he may have controlled himself and let him go  Q: so it could have been an accident? A: Maybe Caesar chewed it in a manner that it was badly damaged and may be the doctors advice to cut it off later  Q: Did the neighbor talk about it later on? A: The neighbor was shouting and pointing his finger towards the old man and that's what infuriated Caesar. He hated that gesture  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did he go to the hospital ?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The neighbor was shouting and pointing his finger towards the old man and that's what infuriated Caesar. He hated that gesture. Sometimes it happens with humans too and it makes us want to catch that finger and twist it hard. (But we don't do that :)) It's a natural emotion that comes to our mind, sometimes. My opinion is that Caesar did not want to bite it off, he just wanted to bite hard on that finger. Hard enough to cause bleeding. One more possibility is that in his anger, he closed his jaws on the finger but when the man started crying in pain he may have controlled himself and let him go. About losing the finger - losing the finger doesn't necessarily mean getting it bitten off. Maybe Caesar chewed it in a manner that it was badly damaged and may be the doctors advice to cut it off later.  <sep>  Q: not sure A: My opinion is that Caesar did not want to bite it off, he just wanted to bite hard on that finger  Q: yes, the film shows his finger and it just looks bloody ,not cut off A: One more possibility is that in his anger, he closed his jaws on the finger but when the man started crying in pain he may have controlled himself and let him go  Q: so it could have been an accident? A: Maybe Caesar chewed it in a manner that it was badly damaged and may be the doctors advice to cut it off later  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was the finger shown on camera after that?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Yes, it is very realistic. While ADHD seems to be about kids who have excess energy, what it really is about is the focus and concentration. ADHD is caused because the areas of the brain that control focus and concentration are UNDER-stimulated or under-activated. So, taking a stimulant, for those with ADHD, actually activates/enervates those portions of the brain. It seems to "calm" the afflicted child or adult, but what it's really doing is allowing them to focus their efforts and energy. Now, to someone who does not have under-stimulated brain function in the area of focus and control, it just has the general, overall stimulative effect because it is a stimulant, after all.  <sep>  Q: Realism of the effect of ADHD medicine in Desperate Housewives?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes, it is very realistic. While ADHD seems to be about kids who have excess energy, what it really is about is the focus and concentration. ADHD is caused because the areas of the brain that control focus and concentration are UNDER-stimulated or under-activated. So, taking a stimulant, for those with ADHD, actually activates/enervates those portions of the brain. It seems to "calm" the afflicted child or adult, but what it's really doing is allowing them to focus their efforts and energy. Now, to someone who does not have under-stimulated brain function in the area of focus and control, it just has the general, overall stimulative effect because it is a stimulant, after all.  <sep>  Q: Realism of the effect of ADHD medicine in Desperate Housewives? A: it is very realistic. While ADHD seems to be about kids who have excess energy, what it really is about is the focus and concentration  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does it have the effect that the show shows on LInette who does not have ADHD?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes, it is very realistic. While ADHD seems to be about kids who have excess energy, what it really is about is the focus and concentration. ADHD is caused because the areas of the brain that control focus and concentration are UNDER-stimulated or under-activated. So, taking a stimulant, for those with ADHD, actually activates/enervates those portions of the brain. It seems to "calm" the afflicted child or adult, but what it's really doing is allowing them to focus their efforts and energy. Now, to someone who does not have under-stimulated brain function in the area of focus and control, it just has the general, overall stimulative effect because it is a stimulant, after all.  <sep>  Q: Realism of the effect of ADHD medicine in Desperate Housewives? A: it is very realistic. While ADHD seems to be about kids who have excess energy, what it really is about is the focus and concentration  Q: Does it have the effect that the show shows on LInette who does not have ADHD? A: to someone who does not have under-stimulated brain function in the area of focus and control, it just has the general, overall stimulative effect because it is a stimulant, after all  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the effect on people who do have ADHD?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There's an entry in UrbanDictionary.com for shoto. This seems to be a fairly family friendly forum so I'll just say that the definition is sexually explicit and the makers may have wanted to avoid any association with it - particularly for a child character. This is a guess based only on a google search for "shoto".  <sep>  Q: Why was the character Shoto in the book change to Sho for the movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There's an entry in UrbanDictionary.com for shoto. This seems to be a fairly family friendly forum so I'll just say that the definition is sexually explicit and the makers may have wanted to avoid any association with it - particularly for a child character. This is a guess based only on a google search for "shoto".  <sep>  Q: Why was the character Shoto in the book change to Sho for the movie? A: I'll just say that the definition is sexually explicit and the makers may have wanted to avoid any association with it - particularly for a child character  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Isn't it true that Shoto is a type of Japanese sword?
Output: No
CONTEXT: There's an entry in UrbanDictionary.com for shoto. This seems to be a fairly family friendly forum so I'll just say that the definition is sexually explicit and the makers may have wanted to avoid any association with it - particularly for a child character. This is a guess based only on a google search for "shoto".  <sep>  Q: Why was the character Shoto in the book change to Sho for the movie? A: I'll just say that the definition is sexually explicit and the makers may have wanted to avoid any association with it - particularly for a child character  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you know why they didn't change Daito's name?
Output: No
CONTEXT: They got help from someone John Connor / T-3000 This guy is from future and he might have brought a skynet chip with him else helped creating a one with the name Genisys. As skynet himself sent him in past, so he must have secured his existence too.  <sep>  Q: How does Skynet get created in Terminator Genisys?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They got help from someone John Connor / T-3000 This guy is from future and he might have brought a skynet chip with him else helped creating a one with the name Genisys. As skynet himself sent him in past, so he must have secured his existence too.  <sep>  Q: How does Skynet get created in Terminator Genisys? A: They got help from someone  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: is the existence of Skynet based on the Predestination paradox?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They got help from someone John Connor / T-3000 This guy is from future and he might have brought a skynet chip with him else helped creating a one with the name Genisys. As skynet himself sent him in past, so he must have secured his existence too.  <sep>  Q: How does Skynet get created in Terminator Genisys? A: They got help from someone  Q: is the existence of Skynet based on the Predestination paradox? A: This guy is from future and he might have brought a skynet chip with him else helped creating a one with the name Genisys. As skynet himself sent him in past, so he must have secured  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did they create more machine chips?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They got help from someone John Connor / T-3000 This guy is from future and he might have brought a skynet chip with him else helped creating a one with the name Genisys. As skynet himself sent him in past, so he must have secured his existence too.  <sep>  Q: How does Skynet get created in Terminator Genisys? A: They got help from someone  Q: is the existence of Skynet based on the Predestination paradox? A: This guy is from future and he might have brought a skynet chip with him else helped creating a one with the name Genisys. As skynet himself sent him in past, so he must have secured  Q: Did they create more machine chips? A: istence  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did he time travel?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think what is really going on is that anyone going into the casino would be put under the spell of the lotus flower (assuming consumption) and after that just doesn't care. The "proprietors" of the casino don't care. Their whole purpose is to draw people in and keep them there. Any "authority" who would normally be keeping this sort of thing from happening would more than likely get drawn in by the flower as well, so too, wouldn't care. It's not illegal for a minor to go into a casino. It is only illegal for them to play the games. If nobody is looking or caring who is playing the games, let it ride.  <sep>  Q: How can Percy and his friends play all the games in casino?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think what is really going on is that anyone going into the casino would be put under the spell of the lotus flower (assuming consumption) and after that just doesn't care. The "proprietors" of the casino don't care. Their whole purpose is to draw people in and keep them there. Any "authority" who would normally be keeping this sort of thing from happening would more than likely get drawn in by the flower as well, so too, wouldn't care. It's not illegal for a minor to go into a casino. It is only illegal for them to play the games. If nobody is looking or caring who is playing the games, let it ride.  <sep>  Q: How can Percy and his friends play all the games in casino? A: I think what is really going on is that anyone going into the casino would be put under the spell of the lotus flower (assuming consumption) and after that just doesn't care  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are they teenagers or are they of legal age to gamble?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think what is really going on is that anyone going into the casino would be put under the spell of the lotus flower (assuming consumption) and after that just doesn't care. The "proprietors" of the casino don't care. Their whole purpose is to draw people in and keep them there. Any "authority" who would normally be keeping this sort of thing from happening would more than likely get drawn in by the flower as well, so too, wouldn't care. It's not illegal for a minor to go into a casino. It is only illegal for them to play the games. If nobody is looking or caring who is playing the games, let it ride.  <sep>  Q: How can Percy and his friends play all the games in casino? A: I think what is really going on is that anyone going into the casino would be put under the spell of the lotus flower (assuming consumption) and after that just doesn't care  Q: Are they teenagers or are they of legal age to gamble? A: It's not illegal for a minor to go into a casino. It is only illegal for them to play the games. If nobody is looking or caring who is playing the games, let it ride  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do the people running the casino care?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think what is really going on is that anyone going into the casino would be put under the spell of the lotus flower (assuming consumption) and after that just doesn't care. The "proprietors" of the casino don't care. Their whole purpose is to draw people in and keep them there. Any "authority" who would normally be keeping this sort of thing from happening would more than likely get drawn in by the flower as well, so too, wouldn't care. It's not illegal for a minor to go into a casino. It is only illegal for them to play the games. If nobody is looking or caring who is playing the games, let it ride.  <sep>  Q: How can Percy and his friends play all the games in casino? A: I think what is really going on is that anyone going into the casino would be put under the spell of the lotus flower (assuming consumption) and after that just doesn't care  Q: Are they teenagers or are they of legal age to gamble? A: It's not illegal for a minor to go into a casino. It is only illegal for them to play the games. If nobody is looking or caring who is playing the games, let it ride  Q: Do the people running the casino care? A: The "proprietors" of the casino don't care  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why don't they care?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV and film productions through financial backing, sponsorship or other enabling methods. Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling - they generally wouldn't have any other impact on the production. Of course, there are a few horror stories about executive producers only providing finances on the proviso that their terrible niece got a role, or they could sit in on the set (and interfere). In the case of AGT, I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers.  <sep>  Q: Why does America's Got Talent have so many executive producers?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV and film productions through financial backing, sponsorship or other enabling methods. Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling - they generally wouldn't have any other impact on the production. Of course, there are a few horror stories about executive producers only providing finances on the proviso that their terrible niece got a role, or they could sit in on the set (and interfere). In the case of AGT, I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers.  <sep>  Q: Why does America's Got Talent have so many executive producers? A: Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do they have anything to do with making the show?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV and film productions through financial backing, sponsorship or other enabling methods. Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling - they generally wouldn't have any other impact on the production. Of course, there are a few horror stories about executive producers only providing finances on the proviso that their terrible niece got a role, or they could sit in on the set (and interfere). In the case of AGT, I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers.  <sep>  Q: Why does America's Got Talent have so many executive producers? A: Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling  Q: Do they have anything to do with making the show? A: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are they all the same type of producer?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV and film productions through financial backing, sponsorship or other enabling methods. Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling - they generally wouldn't have any other impact on the production. Of course, there are a few horror stories about executive producers only providing finances on the proviso that their terrible niece got a role, or they could sit in on the set (and interfere). In the case of AGT, I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers.  <sep>  Q: Why does America's Got Talent have so many executive producers? A: Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling  Q: Do they have anything to do with making the show? A: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV  Q: Are they all the same type of producer? A: I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: They are making tons of money...do they need that many financial backers?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV and film productions through financial backing, sponsorship or other enabling methods. Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling - they generally wouldn't have any other impact on the production. Of course, there are a few horror stories about executive producers only providing finances on the proviso that their terrible niece got a role, or they could sit in on the set (and interfere). In the case of AGT, I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers.  <sep>  Q: Why does America's Got Talent have so many executive producers? A: Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling  Q: Do they have anything to do with making the show? A: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV  Q: Are they all the same type of producer? A: I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers  Q: They are making tons of money...do they need that many financial backers? A: people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV and film productions through financial backing, sponsorship or other enabling methods  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do they do anything other than give money?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV and film productions through financial backing, sponsorship or other enabling methods. Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling - they generally wouldn't have any other impact on the production. Of course, there are a few horror stories about executive producers only providing finances on the proviso that their terrible niece got a role, or they could sit in on the set (and interfere). In the case of AGT, I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers.  <sep>  Q: Why does America's Got Talent have so many executive producers? A: Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling  Q: Do they have anything to do with making the show? A: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV  Q: Are they all the same type of producer? A: I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers  Q: They are making tons of money...do they need that many financial backers? A: people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV and film productions through financial backing, sponsorship or other enabling methods  Q: Do they do anything other than give money? A: there are a few horror stories about executive producers only providing finances on the proviso that their terrible niece got a role, or they could sit in on the set (and interfere  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think since there are so many that most are just financial backers?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged." Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again, even for new evidence (there are exceptions, such as proof of fraud). Its purpose is to strike a balance between the rights of the defendants and plantiffs as well as to make the courts run more efficiently ... kind of like the principle of double jeopardy under criminal law. The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata. So in this episode, where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon.  <sep>  Q: Does it seem to you that The Good wife season 4 episode 6 ending was wrong?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged." Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again, even for new evidence (there are exceptions, such as proof of fraud). Its purpose is to strike a balance between the rights of the defendants and plantiffs as well as to make the courts run more efficiently ... kind of like the principle of double jeopardy under criminal law. The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata. So in this episode, where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon.  <sep>  Q: Does it seem to you that The Good wife season 4 episode 6 ending was wrong? A: where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have legal knowledge to confirm that facts presented were mainly wrong?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged." Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again, even for new evidence (there are exceptions, such as proof of fraud). Its purpose is to strike a balance between the rights of the defendants and plantiffs as well as to make the courts run more efficiently ... kind of like the principle of double jeopardy under criminal law. The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata. So in this episode, where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon.  <sep>  Q: Does it seem to you that The Good wife season 4 episode 6 ending was wrong? A: where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon  Q: Do you have legal knowledge to confirm that facts presented were mainly wrong? A: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What are the grounds to reopen a military case?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged." Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again, even for new evidence (there are exceptions, such as proof of fraud). Its purpose is to strike a balance between the rights of the defendants and plantiffs as well as to make the courts run more efficiently ... kind of like the principle of double jeopardy under criminal law. The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata. So in this episode, where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon.  <sep>  Q: Does it seem to you that The Good wife season 4 episode 6 ending was wrong? A: where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon  Q: Do you have legal knowledge to confirm that facts presented were mainly wrong? A: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged  Q: What are the grounds to reopen a military case? A: The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata  Q: Shouldn't the have Alicia, Kalinda or Will point that the case should be reopened? A: Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How long does that usually take?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think this means that she once again accepted Asgard as her home, is willing to fight for it and accepts Thor as her king (note that she also starts this line with "Your Majesty"), as opposed to how previously she was not interested in going back or helping Thor at all. The "You know what I mean" is probably because she's still a tough woman and did't want to get sentimental. The "Your Majesty" already used up her sentiment quota for the day.  <sep>  Q: What is the meaning of Scrapper 142's words to Thor?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think this means that she once again accepted Asgard as her home, is willing to fight for it and accepts Thor as her king (note that she also starts this line with "Your Majesty"), as opposed to how previously she was not interested in going back or helping Thor at all. The "You know what I mean" is probably because she's still a tough woman and did't want to get sentimental. The "Your Majesty" already used up her sentiment quota for the day.  <sep>  Q: What is the meaning of Scrapper 142's words to Thor? A: I think this means that she once again accepted Asgard as her home, is willing to fight for it and accepts Thor as her king  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Hela surprised to see Thor and Loki alive?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think this means that she once again accepted Asgard as her home, is willing to fight for it and accepts Thor as her king (note that she also starts this line with "Your Majesty"), as opposed to how previously she was not interested in going back or helping Thor at all. The "You know what I mean" is probably because she's still a tough woman and did't want to get sentimental. The "Your Majesty" already used up her sentiment quota for the day.  <sep>  Q: What is the meaning of Scrapper 142's words to Thor? A: I think this means that she once again accepted Asgard as her home, is willing to fight for it and accepts Thor as her king  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can Asgardian gods die?
Output: No
CONTEXT: There's no overarching right answer to this. I think there are a few reasons for it: For starters, it's fun. You've mentioned lots of directors in your question who have done it and it's likely they all got a pretty good kick out of it. Think Hitchcock's many roles or Tarantino in Reservoir Dogs, or Pulp Fiction. There's also a tradition argument. Stan Lee, for example, has done it for so long now that it's expected and many fans get enjoyment out of spotting him in each of his roles. The same applies to Hitchcock. After the fun and tradition reasons, it's certainly plausible to suggest because they can. Many directors don't have the fame or recognition for a cameo role to be significant. But if someone like Tarantino, Scorcese or Peter Jackson does it, it's instantly recognisable given their fame. This can be compared to other, less famous, directors who wouldn't be recognised. Therefore, it certainly carries that making cameos gives them airtime and keeps them recognisable in the public eye. These are just a few of the reasons. I'm sure other arguments could be made, such as the fact it saves money (such as in the case of a longer role, e.g. Tarantino in Django), but it seems to be mostly about a mixture of fun and tradition.  <sep>  Q: Why do directors make cameo appearances in their movies?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There's no overarching right answer to this. I think there are a few reasons for it: For starters, it's fun. You've mentioned lots of directors in your question who have done it and it's likely they all got a pretty good kick out of it. Think Hitchcock's many roles or Tarantino in Reservoir Dogs, or Pulp Fiction. There's also a tradition argument. Stan Lee, for example, has done it for so long now that it's expected and many fans get enjoyment out of spotting him in each of his roles. The same applies to Hitchcock. After the fun and tradition reasons, it's certainly plausible to suggest because they can. Many directors don't have the fame or recognition for a cameo role to be significant. But if someone like Tarantino, Scorcese or Peter Jackson does it, it's instantly recognisable given their fame. This can be compared to other, less famous, directors who wouldn't be recognised. Therefore, it certainly carries that making cameos gives them airtime and keeps them recognisable in the public eye. These are just a few of the reasons. I'm sure other arguments could be made, such as the fact it saves money (such as in the case of a longer role, e.g. Tarantino in Django), but it seems to be mostly about a mixture of fun and tradition.  <sep>  Q: Why do directors make cameo appearances in their movies? A: There's no overarching right answer to this. I think there are a few reasons for it: For starters, it's fun  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What other reason would their be?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There's no overarching right answer to this. I think there are a few reasons for it: For starters, it's fun. You've mentioned lots of directors in your question who have done it and it's likely they all got a pretty good kick out of it. Think Hitchcock's many roles or Tarantino in Reservoir Dogs, or Pulp Fiction. There's also a tradition argument. Stan Lee, for example, has done it for so long now that it's expected and many fans get enjoyment out of spotting him in each of his roles. The same applies to Hitchcock. After the fun and tradition reasons, it's certainly plausible to suggest because they can. Many directors don't have the fame or recognition for a cameo role to be significant. But if someone like Tarantino, Scorcese or Peter Jackson does it, it's instantly recognisable given their fame. This can be compared to other, less famous, directors who wouldn't be recognised. Therefore, it certainly carries that making cameos gives them airtime and keeps them recognisable in the public eye. These are just a few of the reasons. I'm sure other arguments could be made, such as the fact it saves money (such as in the case of a longer role, e.g. Tarantino in Django), but it seems to be mostly about a mixture of fun and tradition.  <sep>  Q: Why do directors make cameo appearances in their movies? A: There's no overarching right answer to this. I think there are a few reasons for it: For starters, it's fun  Q: What other reason would their be? A: There's also a tradition argument. Stan Lee, for example, has done it for so long now that it's expected and many fans get enjoyment out of spotting him in each of his roles  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there another reason why?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There's no overarching right answer to this. I think there are a few reasons for it: For starters, it's fun. You've mentioned lots of directors in your question who have done it and it's likely they all got a pretty good kick out of it. Think Hitchcock's many roles or Tarantino in Reservoir Dogs, or Pulp Fiction. There's also a tradition argument. Stan Lee, for example, has done it for so long now that it's expected and many fans get enjoyment out of spotting him in each of his roles. The same applies to Hitchcock. After the fun and tradition reasons, it's certainly plausible to suggest because they can. Many directors don't have the fame or recognition for a cameo role to be significant. But if someone like Tarantino, Scorcese or Peter Jackson does it, it's instantly recognisable given their fame. This can be compared to other, less famous, directors who wouldn't be recognised. Therefore, it certainly carries that making cameos gives them airtime and keeps them recognisable in the public eye. These are just a few of the reasons. I'm sure other arguments could be made, such as the fact it saves money (such as in the case of a longer role, e.g. Tarantino in Django), but it seems to be mostly about a mixture of fun and tradition.  <sep>  Q: Why do directors make cameo appearances in their movies? A: There's no overarching right answer to this. I think there are a few reasons for it: For starters, it's fun  Q: What other reason would their be? A: There's also a tradition argument. Stan Lee, for example, has done it for so long now that it's expected and many fans get enjoyment out of spotting him in each of his roles  Q: Is there another reason why? A: After the fun and tradition reasons, it's certainly plausible to suggest because they can  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do they like doing it?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I don't think it had any plot driven change. The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action, (slightly) more plausible plots (compared to ray-gun satellites etc), and have less comedic elements. A reboot with a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example) were their answer. They tried to take it this direction before - a Licence to Kill was a deliberate attempt with a drug-smuggling and revenge plot-line, but wasn't well done. They then decided to switch back to more 'classic' Bond approaches with Brosnan.  <sep>  Q: Why is James Bond less tech savvy in the Daniel Craig movies?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I don't think it had any plot driven change. The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action, (slightly) more plausible plots (compared to ray-gun satellites etc), and have less comedic elements. A reboot with a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example) were their answer. They tried to take it this direction before - a Licence to Kill was a deliberate attempt with a drug-smuggling and revenge plot-line, but wasn't well done. They then decided to switch back to more 'classic' Bond approaches with Brosnan.  <sep>  Q: Why is James Bond less tech savvy in the Daniel Craig movies? A: The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What changes were made to make the movies more like the Bourne series?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I don't think it had any plot driven change. The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action, (slightly) more plausible plots (compared to ray-gun satellites etc), and have less comedic elements. A reboot with a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example) were their answer. They tried to take it this direction before - a Licence to Kill was a deliberate attempt with a drug-smuggling and revenge plot-line, but wasn't well done. They then decided to switch back to more 'classic' Bond approaches with Brosnan.  <sep>  Q: Why is James Bond less tech savvy in the Daniel Craig movies? A: The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Were the movies altered to suit the audience?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I don't think it had any plot driven change. The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action, (slightly) more plausible plots (compared to ray-gun satellites etc), and have less comedic elements. A reboot with a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example) were their answer. They tried to take it this direction before - a Licence to Kill was a deliberate attempt with a drug-smuggling and revenge plot-line, but wasn't well done. They then decided to switch back to more 'classic' Bond approaches with Brosnan.  <sep>  Q: Why is James Bond less tech savvy in the Daniel Craig movies? A: The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action  Q: What changes were made to make the movies more like the Bourne series? A: a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What changes were made to the gadgets?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I don't think it had any plot driven change. The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action, (slightly) more plausible plots (compared to ray-gun satellites etc), and have less comedic elements. A reboot with a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example) were their answer. They tried to take it this direction before - a Licence to Kill was a deliberate attempt with a drug-smuggling and revenge plot-line, but wasn't well done. They then decided to switch back to more 'classic' Bond approaches with Brosnan.  <sep>  Q: Why is James Bond less tech savvy in the Daniel Craig movies? A: The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action  Q: What changes were made to make the movies more like the Bourne series? A: a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What Bond movie was the first to star Craig?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The short answer, which is probably the best answer, is that he was an experienced hunter and wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier. You'll note that he never kills unarmed humans (which is why Anna got sent to the chopper unarmed), and at the conclusion he decided to engage in hand-to-hand combat against Dutch, whom he deemed to be a worthy opponent.  <sep>  Q: Why did the first Predator come to Earth?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The short answer, which is probably the best answer, is that he was an experienced hunter and wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier. You'll note that he never kills unarmed humans (which is why Anna got sent to the chopper unarmed), and at the conclusion he decided to engage in hand-to-hand combat against Dutch, whom he deemed to be a worthy opponent.  <sep>  Q: Why did the first Predator come to Earth? A: The short answer, which is probably the best answer, is that he was an experienced hunter and wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was he already an established hunter?
Output: Yes